V ! 8 


Author 



cta.3Kz2.6_! 

b^ .M n 


Title 


Imprint. 


10—47372-1 


GPO 





















ARTICLES 




POLITICAL PARTIES, 


AND THEIR RELATION TO EACH OTHER, 


IN THE STATE, 


By EDWARD McCRADY, Jb., 


Charleston) S. C., April, 1878. 



I PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS AND COURIER. 


CHARLESTON, S. C. 

THE NEWS' AND COURIER BOOK AND JOB PRESSES. 

1878. 




































Cv "'-< 7 G ii 

~Z> £ <4 r '~) 
















POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE STATE, 


No. I. 


At the last caucus of the Democratic mem¬ 
bers of the Legislature, which has just ad¬ 
journed, the following resolutions were, we 
are told, unanimously adopted : 

Resolved , That it is the sen«e of the Democratic 
members of the General Assembly, in canons, that 
no Democrat having the interest of the State at 
heart should unite wiih Republicans on an indepen¬ 
dent ticket, and that the caucus through its presi¬ 
dent do recommend to the Democratic caucus of the 
next Legislature that all such Representatives 
elected as Independents he not allowed admittance 
into the Democratic caucus of the next General 
Assembly.” 

This resolution, which was probably passed 
with but little consideration, is clearly de¬ 
signed to forestall public opinion in advance 
of the meeting of the Democratic Convention. 
Having always belonged to that party which 
still calls itself “Democratic,” we do not 
admit the right of the members of the Legis¬ 
lature, on the eve of its dissolution, thus to 
dictate the platform for the next political 
campaign. We have always been opposed to 
the “caucus” system for any purposes what¬ 
soever. We believe it to be dangerous in its 
working and injurious to the rights ot the 
people, as affording a shield and cover to the 
responsibility of their representatives. Its in¬ 
evitable result is secret legislation, and we 
trust that there will be no “Democratic 
caucus in the next Legislature” to allow or 
deny admittance into its body. 

But if legitimate for any purposes, this res¬ 
olution adopted by it was a usurpation of the 
functions of another body whose duty and 
prerogative it is to prescribe the rules for the 
conduct of the party in ihe next election—a 
body which will be composed not of those 
who were chosen two years since, under 
other circumstances and for other purposes, 
and whose term of office is about to expire, 
but of others yet to be selected from the 
people for this special purpose, and in view 
of present exigencies. The Democratic Con¬ 
vention yet to be called is the proper body— 
if any—to deal with this question, and not a 
caucus of an expiring Legislature. 

We take leave, therefore, to regard the 
subject of thus resolution of the “Caucus” as 
still an open one, and will make bold to dis¬ 
cuss its merits notwithstanding the dicta of 
that very respectable body. 

No time will perhaps be more opportune 
for the consideration of the subject suggested 


! by this resolution, viz., the relation of politi¬ 
cal parties in this State, than the present, 
when on the one hand the public mind is 
awake to its merits, and on the other when 
passions have in some degree cooled, and 
candidates for office not having been an¬ 
nounced, we are less influenced by personal 
consideration. 

Id the last two years we have passed through 
a revolution—a revolution which though, 
alas! not bloodless, was wonderfully free 
from violence when it is thought what issues 
were involved in the struggle. It is not, we 
think, too much to say that none but such a 
law-abiding people as ours—nor perhaps any 
but this generation of our people—could have 
come through such a struggle without greater 
loss of life and destruction of property. Two 
elements of peace fortunately pervaded our 
society love of law. and tried courage 
which needed not an occasion for its exhibi¬ 
tion. Reverence of the law, for the sake of 
tne law, was so deeply imbued, that our peo¬ 
ple obeyed the law though enacted in ig¬ 
norance and corruption, and bowed down to 
its sceptre even wuile in the hands of clowns 
and knaves. At almost every fireside there 
sat some veteran who, conscious of his own 
proved manhood, was determined to for¬ 
bear much to prevent a conflict, bnt 
in which if it came he knew his duty 
! and none doubted but that he would do 
! it. With patience and courage the crisis 
] was passed, ami the state was rescued from 
the thieves and robbers whom the policy of a 
party had put in places of honor and power 

But though guided by prudence and con¬ 
trolled by patience, our late struggle was 
nevertheless a revolution, and while it may 
he true “that what is done in the moment of 
revolution is not to be examined too critically 
by the rules of school philosophy and the 
morality of the closet,” let us recollect that it 
is yet more certain that no State which would 
maintain a position in the civilized world can 
permanently rely on measures which are jus¬ 
tified only by its necessities. 

A great problem has been forced upon the 
people of the South—a political problem than 
which none greater has been solved by human 
wisdom. We appreciate its magnitude and 
recognize its difficulties, and yet we have, as 
wisely as honestly, asked to be allowed to 
solve it for ourselves. That by our modera¬ 
tion we have secured the right and made for 













4 


ourselves the opportunity of doing this, we 
are convinced that history will accord to us 
as a great achievement. 

But it is only the right to meet the great 
question, viz : How can the two races which 
Providence has placed in this laud dwell together 
in peace, and with equal rights? which we have 
secured. The struggle for our right to solve 
it, we trust, is over. The problem remains. 
How shall we answer it ? 

A complete answer this generation may not 
be able to give. It cannot now be fully dis¬ 
cussed. But we must at once grapple with it, 
and perhaps the best way to commence is to 
content ourselves to meet only those obvious 
points which force themselves upon our im¬ 
mediate consideration. Let it be sufficient for 
us to take that wisest of all steps in political 


No 


As intimated in our former number, we 
propose to consider in this the relations of 
our people to the two national parties, Demo¬ 
cratic and Republican, and to inquire how far 
we are bound and what we owe to either. 

Until but recently there has been so little 
divisiou of opinion in this State upon national 
politics, our people have with such great 
unanimity belonged to the Demojratic party, 
its principles were so interwoven with our 
doctrine of the relations of the State to the 
General Government, that notwithstanding 
t his is all now changed, a South Carolinian 
feels almost as if he were an apostate to his 
faith as he finds the question con.-tantly re¬ 
curring to him, Why am 1 longer a, Democrat ? 
Still the question does constantly recur, and 
each time with an increasing demand for some 
more satisfactory answer tuan the mere as¬ 
sertion of the right of that party to his alle¬ 
giance. 

Our people were taught that State sov¬ 
ereignty, with all that the le an “sovereignty” 
i nplies, was the fundamental principle—the 
life spring of the Democratic party; that 
States rights implied remedies as well as 
privileges of sovereignty, indeed we could 
never understand the existence of a right 
without a commensurate remedy. If, then, 
the State had the right to manage its own 
affairs in the Union, we supposed it had the 
remedy of withdrawing from the Union in 
case this right 'was interfered with. For 
manv years we thought the right in danger, 
and at last in 1860, with the assurance of the 
support of our Northern brethren in the 
faiih, the South attempted the exercise of the 
remedv. The States seceded. 

We had been told that the streets of the 
Northern cities would run with blood, and 
Federal troops would march over the lifeless 
bodies of thousands of Democrats before they 
could cross bayonets with the Southern 
seceders. We were not alarmed then when Mr, 


matters —“the next best stepP and may be we 
shall find, in doing so, another instance of the 
old truth, that 

“Hard things are compass'd oft by easy means.” 

The subject which first engages our atten¬ 
tion, as we contemplate our political condi¬ 
tion, is that of parties. Nominally we find the 
State divided into two great political classes: 
Democrat and Republican. Whether these 
names correct ly designate the actual division 
of our people, and whether it is wise to be 
bound by them, are questions which we shall 
have the temerity to ask, and the frankness, 
we trust, fairly to discuss. 

In subsequent numbers we shall consider 
these questions as they relate (1) to National, 
and ( 2) to State politics. E. McC., Jr. 


II. 


Lincoln issued his proclamation for 75,000 
men, for we were assured that the Northern 
Democrats would disperse that body before it 
reached the Potomac—if indeed it, could be 
formed. Now if the Southern States after 
seceding had invaded Northern territory, we 
should have expected every Northern Demo¬ 
crat to have obeyed the call of his State, and 
to have resisted us to the death. But great was 
our surprise to learn that in the assembling 
forces at Washington our Democratic friends 
of the North were foremost in the field to 
force us back into the Union. We may have 
been mistaken, but as plain men we thought 
w e had the concurrence of the Democratic 
party of the North in the propriety and 
necessity of exercising the remedy of seces¬ 
sion to save the endangered rights of the 
States. But, however that may be, the 
Northern Democrats now claim that they 
rendered service equal to that of the Republi- 
eans in establishing the inviolability of the 
Union. So our people learned that if a State 
did have rights it by no means followed that 
there was a remedy for its wrongs; This did 
not seem consistent with Democratic theor\; 
but in time we learned to accept it. 

During the progress of the war, as the Fed¬ 
eral forces gained possession more or less per¬ 
manent, State Governments were established 
in various partsof the territory of the Confede¬ 
rate States under Federal military authority, 
and in one instance the General Government,at 
Washington went so far as to divide a State; 
hut this caused our people little uneasiness, 
knowing as we did that the Constitution guar¬ 
anteed the inviolability of State territory. 
W e felt assured that when peace was restored 
this action would be disregarded. But. when 
the war was indeed over, we found that the 
sacred soil of \ irginia had been forever sun¬ 
dered, and that, without the consent, of the 
people. Congress had Carved out a new State 
from the Old Dominion. But we thought 
this, too, was only a war measuie, and, the 


* t 
* / 








5 


Union having been restored, that the Derao- 
crats would now see to It tUat the States were 
no more interfered with. 

But then came another shock. The Con¬ 
gress of the United States had declared again 
and again during the war that it was waged 
only for the preservation of the Union, and the 
Confederate armies surrendered, as we under¬ 
stood, on t his basis. We expected to see the 
Governors call the Legislatures together and 
take such steps as would be necessary to re¬ 
store the seceded States to the Union from 
which they had withdrawn, and being withal 
not unreasonable we expected that the Federal 
army would not be removed until the United 
States Government had secured from the se¬ 
ceded States such guarantees as it thought 
necessary to require before our representatives 
were readmitted into the houses from which 
they had retired. Unfortunately President 
Johnson, Democrat, as he had at least once 
been, had a “reconstruction” policy of his 
own—“My policy,” as he termed it —the first 
reconstruction policy. 

Our people had been told again and again 
that the war had been waged upon them be¬ 
cause a State bad no right nor inherent power 
to withdraw from the. Union. Mr. Johnson 
seems to have recognized the right and the 
power—the power at least by so doing to 
commit a political fielo de -<e, and to have con¬ 
sidered that the Southern States had nearly 
accomplished the suicidal act. lie seems to 

No. 


In our last number we recalled the fact that 
the first “Reconstruction” measure emanated 
from Mr. Johnson, a Democrat, and was not 
objected to by the Northern Democrats. 
That it was only the Republican appropriation 
of Mr. Johnson’s advice that roused the 
anger of the Northern Democracy and caused 
them to declare such legislation revolution¬ 
ary, null and void. Still we said, had they 
firmly stood upon that ground and carried the 
country with them, and thus saved the South¬ 
ern States from the years of misrule we have 
endured, that then, indeed, would we have 
owed the Democratic party eternal allegiance. 
In this number we propose to inquire whether 
they did so. 

The nature and extent of Mr. Johnson’s 
“Reconstruction,” we said, events had left in 
doubt, but there was no doubt about the life 
with which Mr. Stevens had inspired the 
bodies of the conquered States. There were 
now no galvanic convulsive contortions; the 
bodv of each was really alive. Monstrosities 
of States they undoubtedly were, but real 
living beings; if without power for good, yet 
with fearful power for mischief. Before them 
the Democratic party quailed, and at Balti¬ 
more in 1872 withdrew its protest, and adopt¬ 
ing as its own a Republican platform, that of 
ihe Cincinnati Convention, (1st May, 1872,) 
acquiesced in the lawfulness of their exist¬ 


have thought that the seceded States re¬ 
quired at least a resuscitation, and that in the 
revival process he would in some instance, as 
in this State, change somewhat of the organic 
structure. Whether he did more than galva¬ 
nize these bodies politic into a few convulsive 
throes, simulating life, their speedy and com¬ 
plete subversion by Mr. Stevens’s “recon¬ 
struction” measures, leaves us still in doubt. 
But sure it is that the Northern Democrats 
found no fault with his “reconstruction.” 

But, thought Mr. Stevens, if the Southern 
States are sueli pliable subjects why should 
not he, too, try his hand at a “reconstnu- 
tion” a little more suited to the purposes of 
the Republican party, with which Mr. John¬ 
son had quarreled ?” And he did so. He 
“reconstructed” the Southern States “with a 
vengeance.” Now Mr. Johnson’s “recon¬ 
struction” measures had all been very well 
with the Democratic party, but not so this 
Republican appropriation of Mr. Johnson’s 
device. In 1868 the Democrats in conven¬ 
tion declared Mr. Stevens’s “reconstruction” 
measures unconstitutional, revolutionary, null 
and void, aud had they firmly stood upon that 
platform, and ultimately carried the country 
with them upon it, then indeed would the 
Democrats, notwithstanding their previous 
desertion of the South, have regained its un¬ 
wavering support. 

Whether they did so we shall consider in 
our next number. E. McC., Jr. 

III. 


ence, Mr. Bayard tried and tried in vain only' 
to be heard against this action of the oarty. 
Now this may have been wise, if not courage¬ 
ous. We do not discuss its wisdom as a party 
measure. But the fact remains that the Dem¬ 
ocratic party did leave us of the South to our 
fate with these hideous governments fastened 
upon us and preying upon our vitals. 

But if the Democratic party quailed before 
these creatures of Republican malignity and 
greed, and abandoned the Southern States to 
their fate, the enjoyment of the Republicans 
in the work of their hands was but brief. The 
governments called into existence to control 
the Democratic party soon turned upon their 
creator. They demanded that the Govern¬ 
ment, which was in fact, the Republican 
party, should support them in their infamous 
deeds, with men and money, and in return 
they sent to its councils theives and robbers, 
ignorance and vice, until at last, for very 
shame, the party had to disown its own crea¬ 
tures. But that was no easy matter. 

There is a curious story of a student of 
natural science who devoted himself to the 
search for the elixir of life, and discovered it. 
lie doubted at first whether he should attempt 
the creation of a being like himself or one of 
a simpler organization, but borne away at last 
by his imagination he determined to give life 
to a creature as complex and wonderful as 













6 


man. As, however, minuteness of the parts 
formed a great hindrance to his work he re¬ 
solved contrary to his iirst intention to make 
his creature of gigantic stature, lie did so; 
and the monster he created lived, and he 
became its victim. It brought disgrace and 
terror and death into his family, blighted his 
life and finally murdered him, its creator. 
As he lay stiff and cold and dead there were 
but slight marks noon his person; but those 
marks were the same as had been found upon 
the other victim of the monster’s malignity. 

The Republican party, by its reconstruction 
acts, created political monsters, which, after 
desolating the fair South, turned upon their 
creator.’ Frankenstein’s Prometheus would 
allow his creator to have no peace nor happi¬ 
ness which he had not fitted it too to enjoy. So 
the monster governments which the Republi¬ 
can party created soon dragged that party 
down to their own level of ignorance and 
fraud, violence and corruption, and when, at 
last, like Frankenstein, it resolved to control 
them, that party, too, is found fatally injured, 
bearing the marks put upon it by those who 
were alike its creatures and its destroyers. 

Had the Democratic party stood lirmly by 
its resolve of 1S6S, and continued to deny the 
validity of the reconstruction measures—had 
it, thus, in a measure, returned to the prin¬ 
ciples of its first faith, and, carrying the 
country with it, had it overthrown the 
wretched governments set up and sustained 
by the military power of the United States— 
had it thus restored t he Southern States to 
their former Constitutions, then indeed, again 
we say. would we have been bound to render 
it a lasting and unwavering support. But the 
Democratic party did not do this. It, aban¬ 


doned the South to its fate, and sacrificed it 
to the passions ai^d fanaticism of the hour. 
Through ten long weary years we of the 
South have struggled with the vile govern¬ 
ments wihich the Democratic party in 1872 
recognized as legitimate‘and lawful. By our 
omi wisdom, patience, fortitude and energy 
we have at last thrown off the yoke placed 
upon our necks by the Republican party, and 
nailed there by the Democrats. Worn and 
weary with the strife it has required, de¬ 
spoiled and plundered, w r e find ourselves in¬ 
volved in enormous debts contracted for us by 
the robbers whom the Democratic party re¬ 
cognized as our legitimate rulers. These 
debts we w ill have to pay as the consequence 
of that recognition. 

It has long been t he settled doctrine of the 
Courts of the United States that whether the 
political body which had possession of the 
Government was or was not the State is a 
political not a judicial question, and that, t he 
Courts would follow the political decision 
upon the subject. As long, therefore, as one 
of the great National political parties denied 
the law! ulness of the Reconstruction 
measures, the State Governments; the law¬ 
fulness of which was thus questioned, were 
restricted in their credit in the money 
markets, and we were thus protected from 
the effects of their fraudulent extravagance. 
But as soon as the Democratic party at Balti¬ 
more adopted as its own the Cincinnati 
Republican platform, which acknowledged 
the rightfulness of those governments, all 
political parties thus abandoning the question, 
we were bound by the obligations which, as 
the legitimate Governments of the State, they 
had the legal right to incur for whatever 
infamous purposes. E. McC. -Jr. 


No. IV. 


When Congress met in December, 1876, 
two courses were open to the Democratic 
party—(I) to maintain Mr. Tilden’s election at 
every hazard, and to seat him at every 
cost, or (2) to submit the ease to arbitration. 
Believing as we then did that Mr. Hayes’s 
government would be but, a continuation of 
t he rule of Morton and Chandler, and goaded 
to desperation, the Democratic party might 
have been assured of Southern support iiad 
they adopted the first course; but when they 
submitted to the second, wisely or unwisely, 
they left the Southern members in a position 
in which they were obliged to take care of 
'themselvi s. If, on the one hand, Wall street 
could not risk a disputed succession, on the 
other the South could not afford to leave her 
destiny to the uncertain award of an electoral 
commission. What was a matter of politics 
and policy and places to the Northern Demo¬ 
crat,, was, a matter of life and death to the 
Southern. 

The Southern Democrats had struggled as 
for their lives for the National candidates, 


without assistance and with little encourage¬ 
ment from the party at large. They so strug¬ 
gled because though they were but indiffer¬ 
ently treated by their Northern brethren, if 
there was any remnant of faith in the Demo¬ 
cratic party it, was opposition to Federal inter¬ 
ference with State affairs. But when the 
Commission, contrary to the calculation of the 
Northern Democrats, declared for Mr. Haves 
the Southern leaders saw that the time for re¬ 
sistance had passed, and they resolutely re¬ 
fused to allow the country to be thrown into 
civil strife. By wise and statesmanlike con¬ 
duct they prevented another convulsion of 
the country, which, however it may have ter¬ 
minated, would have been ruin to the South. 

To the earnest Southern .citizen there is now 
little to attract or bind him to eithet National 
party. The Northern Democrats deserted 
him, and claims credit to-day for having 
turned upon him in the hour of his need. The 
Republican name is associated with animosi¬ 
ties in the past and disgrace and infamy in the 
present. 









7 


The Democratic party lias from time to time | 
given up one thing and then another, until 
there now remains but little that is distinctive 
in its creed. It favors home rule as a. policy, 
but it has abandoned the right to maintain it 
as a principle. Jt. opposes the expenditure of 
the revenue in internal improvements, but un¬ 
til the South, by its own strength, threw off 
the “carpet-bag” governments, it permitted 
them to be maintained by the army at the ex¬ 
pense of the nation—thus returning to us our 
taxes in the form of garrisons, rather than 
railroads and canals. It is for free trade, but 
New England has always found it sufficiently 
accommodating to protect her manufactures. 
On the other hand, the principles of the Repub¬ 
lican party expended itself in Mr. Stevens’s 
“Reconstruction” measures, and upon the 
adoption of the late amendments to the Con¬ 
stitution its legitimate business was accom¬ 
plished. 

That there is now really no living question 
at issue between the Democratic and Republi¬ 
can parties was shown by the action of the 
Democratic Convention in 1872 in adopting 
the Cincinnati Republican platform, and again 
before the Electoral Commission. .Just as the 
Tories iu England in 1778 forgot the Divine 
right of Kings iu their desire to control the 
government during the incapacity of George 
III, while the Whigs to seat the Prince of 
Wales denied the right of Parliament to in¬ 
terfere with the succession; so with us, the 
Republican counsel before that commission 
rested Mr. Hayes’s case upon extreme States’ 
Rights doctrine, while the Democrats as 
“liberally” relied upon the overruling power 
of the General Government. Only a senti¬ 
ment now divides the people into those old 
parties—the sentiment of old animosities and 
of implacable hate. But this is softening. 
Even hate, like sorrow, will in time assuage 
itself. 

We must not be understood to assert, still j 
less to believe, that the great difference in I 


opinions as to the limits of government i. c., 
the difference between a strong concentrated 
government and one of restricted powers, no 
longer exists. That difference is the neces¬ 
sary balance which gives to the great Anglo- 
Saxon forms of government stability on the 
one hand and secures liberty on the other. 
It has been the dividing line between all 
political parties, under whatever names, both 
in England and in this country. In England 
they have been called “Cavaliers” and “Round- 
heads,” “Whigs” and “Tories.” With us 
those who desired a strong government have 
arrayed themselves under the successive 
names of “Federals,” “Whigs” and “Republi¬ 
cans;” while those who preferred to re¬ 
strict its powers have from time to time been 
styled “Republicans,” “Nationals,” “Demo¬ 
crats.” But in the history of parties, as for 
instance in England upon the settlement of 
the House of Hanover upon the Throne, and 
with us upon the adoption of the Four¬ 
teenth and Fifteenth amendments 
and the recognition of all parties of 
the Reconstruction Governments, it happens 
that the two parties, whether by reason or 
by force, come so close together as to require 
new issues to separate them again and to de¬ 
fine the dividing line between them. For 
many years the North had a policy to enforce, 
and needed a strong government to aid it. 
The South had a policy to protect, and was 
for restricting the powers of the General Gov¬ 
ernment. The policy of the Norlh prevailed, 
and the North no longer desires a strong gov¬ 
ernment; the South no longer fears it. 

New issues will doubtless arise again to di¬ 
vide the people of the United States upon 
this subject; but upon such separation and 
reorganization the personnel of parties will be 
much changed. For the present no living 
question divides the people into the old Na¬ 
tional parties—Republicans and Democrats. 

What defines and divides the parties in this 
State ? E. McC., Jr. 


No. V. 


We closed our last number with the inquiry, 
What defines and divides the parties in this 
State ? Can any one be found, from the moun¬ 
tains to the seaboard, to point out the differ¬ 
ence in principle as enunciated in their re¬ 
spective platforms ? The Republican party is 
noisy in its pledges for reform and honest 
government, and the Democrats are earnest in 
their promises for equal rights to all. Neither 
party builds a hobby so high but that the other 
instantly mounts it. If any Democrat can be 
found bold enough to attempt to define his 
political creed as contradistinguished from 
that of the Republican party in this State—if 
an officeholder, we will prove him a sworn 
Republican—if not an officeholder, the sup¬ 
porter and upholder of those who have sworn 
allegiance to the principles of that party. 

What was the pivotal point of difference 


between the Democrats and those who, un¬ 
der the various names of Federalists, Whigs 
and Republicans, have warred upon them? 
Was it not the sovereignty of the State ? Was 
it not that the allegiance of the people was 
due to the States, even against the United 
States ? Did we not fight four years for this 
doctrine ? But read the oath which the mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly and all oificers, 
from Governor Hampton down, were com¬ 
pelled by the present Constitution to take be¬ 
fore they entered upon the execution of the 
duties of their respective offices, and you will 
find that each and every one of them swore 
“That I recognize the supremacy of the Consti¬ 
tution and laws of the United States over the 
Constitution and lavis of any State.' 1 ' 1 Is it not 
absurd for any one who has taken this oath 
to call himself “a Straightout Democrat 














8 


Bat, if there is no difference in political 
principle between the two parties in this 
State, what divides them ? How is it that we 
constantly hear of the Democratic party and 
the Republican party? Unfortunately there 
has been a marked difference of another kind. 
The difference of race and color. We believe 
it to be a great misfortune to both races that 
they are placed with equal rights and 
, unlimited suffrage in the same territory. But 
neither the white man nor the negro of this 
State is responsible for this. Partisan 
purposes of others have brought it about, but 
both races are equally concerned to make the 
best of it. If, then, the fact is that the white 
man and the negro are to dwell together here 
with equal rights before the law, the most 
earnest effort of the statesman should be to 
prevent the different races from espousing, 
as races, different and . opposing political 
parties. If all the white men are to be count¬ 
ed Democrats, and all the negroes Republi¬ 
cans, let us do away with the ballot box, and 
be governed by the census. 

Such a division is full of the greatest evils. 
Prominent among those is the inevitable re¬ 
sult of stifling all discussion as to public mea¬ 
sures in either party. Draw the party line by 
races and all must follow, whoever first 
chances to mount and rushes to the front. It 
is this race division which renders necessary 
the caucus, with the evils of which we com¬ 
menced these article. 

When the right of suffrage was given to the 
negroes, in 1868, by Mr. Stevens’s Recon¬ 
struction acts, we know, notwithstanding all 
that has been said to the contrary, that we 
could not, if we would, have controlled their 
votes, and it is due to candor to say we would 
not if we could. We did not admit the right. 
The Democratic party throughout the coun¬ 
try denied it; and as long as there was a pos¬ 
sibility of averting the calamity of its enforce¬ 
ment we properly resisted it. 

No one more earnestly opposed the recog¬ 
nition of its rightfulness than did the author 
of these articles; nor have we now any word 
that we then wrote or said to retract. Ex¬ 
perience has fulfilled all our fears. And were 
the question now as open a one as it was in 


1870 we should now as earnestly resist the 
recognition of that right as we did then. But 
the Democrats at Baltimore in 1872 put an 
end to our struggle when they adopted a 
Republican platform and recognized the legi¬ 
timacy of the Reconstruction governments. 
The question is not now as to the legality of 
the negro vote—that is settled. The ques¬ 
tion is, What must be done with it ? We are 
remitted to our condition of 1868, with this 
great difference, we have now rescued the 
State from the dominion of the adventurers 
and thieves who had the absolute mastery of 
the negro, and we may now fairly and hon¬ 
orably deal with the colored man and his 
vote. 

That vote, without our consent, is now an 
important factor in our politics. The revolu¬ 
tion of 1876 has disorganized it, and it is now 
without discipline or leaders. But it is still 
there, and will be used by us, or by others. If 
the honesty and intelligence of the State will 
not endeavor to influence it, it will inevitably 
fall into the hands of other adventurers and 
plunderers. But how influence it if we start 
out with the avowal that no man who receives 
its support shall be allowed admittance into 
the white man’s party ? 

The Reconstruction measures were not 
passed for the good of the country, still less 
of the negro. They were enacted to per¬ 
petuate the Republican party, and when the 
Democrats at Baltimore in 1872 recognized 
.those governments as legitimate it fastened 
upon the Southern white men this condition: 
that they should return to power only through 
the door of the Republican party. We have ac¬ 
cepted the condition. We have taken the 
prescribed oath of allegiance to that party. 
We have bowed our heads and have crawled 
through—with us—that low and dirty portal. 
But having done so, and having thus regained 
our liberty and our power, are we to sing 
pieans to either party ? And if so, to which ? 

In another and last number we shall recur 
to the resolution which suggested these com¬ 
munications, and will show that the caucus 
which adopted it undertook thereby to lay 
down a rule for others which it had positively 
and distinctly refused to be governed by 
itself. E. McC., Jr. 


\ 











9 


No. VI. 


Once more, Mr. Editor, we ask space 
in your columns and this time to conclude 
our observations upon the subject of the poli¬ 
tical parties in the State and their relation to 
each other. We will do this by showing, as 
we promised in our last, that the caucus 
which resolved that no Democrat having the 
interests of the State at heart should unite 
with Republicans on an independent ticket, 
prescribed a rule of conduct for others which 
they declined to be governed by themselves. 

To do this we need not go back to the elec¬ 
tion last spring of Chief “Justice Willard, an 
avowed and consistent Republican, by this 
same Democratic caucus. Its action this 
winter has been much more pronounced and 
decided. 

It will be recollected that before the elec¬ 
tion of the Circuit Judges last February this 
very question was much discussed. It was 
claimed that Judge Cook and Judge Mackey- 
had been very active in their assistance in the 
election of Governor Hampton in the fall of 
’76, and had rendered the Democratic party 
great service thereby, and that they conse¬ 
quently should be re-elected by the Demo¬ 
cratic members of the Legislature. On the 
other hand it was urged that neither of these 
gentlemen had been known in our courts be¬ 
fore his elevation to the bench by the Repub- 
can party; that both had been elected at the 
midnight Radical caucus, which in 1875 en¬ 
deavored to seat at the same time Moses and 
Wliipper, and that in fact neither was fitted 
for the position. That on the other hand 
there were many lawyers in the Democratic 
party who would .adorn the bench equally by 
their learning and their character. The con¬ 
tention on the subject ran high, and caused 
much excitement and feeling. 

The question was brought to issue by Sena¬ 
tor Lipscomb who, we learn from the Colum¬ 
bia Register of 16th February, moved these 
resolutions: 

“ Resolved , 1. That in the election for Circuit 
Judges we will only support by our votes recog¬ 
nized and unquestionable members of the Demo¬ 
cratic party recommended by unblemished charac¬ 
ter and eminent learning in the profession. 

“Resolved , 2. That if any other candidate, or 
candidates, shall be put in nomination for such 
offices by this caucus the individuals, members 
thereof, shall not be bound to vote for them in the 
General Assembly, but shall be at liberty to cast 
their votes according to their own discretion.” 

The Register adds: “Those resolutions were 
indefinitely postponed, and Senator Lipscomb 
retired from the caucus.” As is well known 
Judge Mackey was re-elected. 

With the propriety or impropriety of Judge 
Mackey’s election we are not now concerned, 
but is it not a little singular that the body which 
in February refused to pledge itself “to sup¬ 
port by its votes recognized and unquestionable 
members of the Democratic party , recommended 
by unblemished character and eminent learn- 
2 


ing in their profession,” and instead elected 
a Republican, one who had been for years the 
bitterest foe to the Democratic party in the 
State, should in March volunteer to advise 
the Democratic caucus of the next Legisla¬ 
ture to refuse admittance to any Democrat 
who should happen to be elected on a ticket 
with Republicans ? IIow came this caucus, 
holding the views of its last resolution, to 
elect a Republican on a Democratic ticket ? If 
this caucus could for any purposes afford to 
elect a Republican on a Democratic ticket, 
may not some county convention for like or 
other purposes afford to authorize Democratic 
nominations on a Republican ticket ? 

Governor Hampton has just told us that if 
when our convention meets it will place the 
people of the State squarely on the platform 
adopted in 1876—the platform which declares 
there shall be equal laws for all the people of 
South Carolina, equal justice and equal rights; 
that if we will plant ourselves once more on 
that platform; if we will nominate a Conser¬ 
vative ticket, that the Republicans will not 
oppose us, that we will find that for the first 
time in years they are willing to let the State 
ticket go in without opposition. But what 
was the platform of 1876 ? Was not that 
platform purposely made so broad that every 
honest man, white or black, could find room to 
stand upon it ? Did we not go among the 
negroes and reason with them, and show' 
them that there was no difference as to prin¬ 
ciple between the two parties; that all we 
wanted was intelligence and honesty in 
office ? 

We believe that Governor Hampton can 
and will be re-elected by an overwhelming 
majority of whites and blacks. Will he be 
excluded from our councils because he is 
voted for by Republicans and negroes? And 
if so, will Judge Mackey be admitted in his 
place ? 

Everybody in the State understands that 
this is settled, viz: That the honest white people 
of this State will never again submit to the rule 
we overthrew in 1876; that w r e will not again 
allow anything but honesty and intelligence 
to rule over us. But the adoption of this last 
resolution was, to say the least of it, inconsis¬ 
tent, premature and unw'arranted. How we 
are to deal with the immense negro vote in 
this State is a question of great difficulty and 
delicacy—one with which the Democratic 
Conventions have hitherto dealt with great 
care, wisely refusing to prescribe a rule which 
in its practical working in particular instances 
might prove ruinous to the best interest of 
theT State at large. The resolution was a 
mischievous assumption which we trust our 
“Democratic” Convention will not heed, but 
will allow each county to deal with this 
matter as the necessities of each particular 
community may require. The policy that 
may be wise in one portion of the State may 
be impracticable and dangerous in another. 









In conclusion, Mr. Editor, let us not be un¬ 
derstood as advising an abandonment of our 
alliance with those who, for want of another 
name, still style themselves the “National 
Democratic party.” For if all this is true—if 
the old parties have fought their battles, and 
if the issues between them are really decided, 
it does not follow that a new party can 
be conjured into existence—can be manu¬ 
factured to order. Parties, if not begotten of 
passion, are of slow growth. For the present 
at least, while we owe it nothing, it suits our 
purposes best to support that party which yet 
calls itself “Democratic.” But in doing so 
let us recollect that we owe our redemption 
not to that party, but to the prophets which 
God has raised up to us from our own soil. 
We were left, let us remember, to our own 
resources, to grapple with the hideous gov¬ 
ernments which were placed over us. We 



were left to our own courage and lorutude to 
overcome domestic discord and strife. We 
were left to our own wisdom and patience 
to lind and follow' the way to a peaceful solu¬ 
tion in our difficult and dangerous entangle¬ 
ment. We have proved that the giant is 
really under the mountain, and he has 
moved it. This giant was that predicted by 
Mr. Adams in 1868—our own “patient and 
enduring persistence in well-doing in the face 
of discouragement.” Let us recollect that 
our redemption has been our own work, and 
not the work of the Democratic party; and let 
us rather follow the lead of him under whose 
guidance God has thus far prospered us, than 
the dictation of a “caucus” which would in 
anticipation of the coming campaign repel the 
vote that Governor Hampton has with such 
true statesmanship won over to the support 
of our own people and of our own interest. 

E. McC., Jr. 





















































































































































